Why Be A Catholic?

The Catholic Sun ^ | February 5, 2004 | Archbishop Michael J. Sheehan

[Jeff Chandler]

Why Be A Catholic?

Is the Eucharist ‘really’ Christ’s Body and Blood? An alarming Gallup poll

By Archbishop Michael J. Sheehan Special to The Catholic Sun

In the spring of 1992, a Gallup poll was taken on Catholic attitudes toward Holy Communion. The poll showed serious confusion among Catholics about one of the most basic beliefs of the Church. Only 30 percent of those surveyed believe they are actually receiving the Body and Blood, soul and divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine; 29 percent think they are receiving bread and wine which symbolize the spirit and teachings of Jesus and, in so doing, are expressing their attachment to His person and words; 10 percent understand their action to be receiving bread and wine in which Jesus is present; and, 23 percent hold that they are receiving what has become the Body and Blood of Christ because of their personal belief.

Any well-informed Catholic will recognize that only the first option, chosen by the 30 percent, is true Catholic teaching. The other options represent various forms of Protestant belief.

As a bishop, I am deeply concerned about the inaccurate and distorted views of the Eucharist apparently held by many of our people. I believe it is important to clearly understand the correct doctrine; then to live according to that doctrine.

Scripture and tradition

Our Catholic teaching that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus, not bread and wine, is clearly taught in the Bible and throughout the 2,000-year tradition of the Church. The teaching of Jesus in the sixth chapter of John’s Gospel is very clear: “Amen, amen I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him” (John 6:53-56).

John goes on to say that, even though many disciples would not accept this teaching and went away, Jesus did not attempt to bring them back by saying He was only speaking symbolically.

The early Church took this teaching seriously. In his first letter to the Corinthians, Saint Paul says, “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the Body and Blood of the Lord… for anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the Body, eats and drinks judgement on himself (1Corinthians 11:27, 29). Paul’s statement makes sense only if the bread and wine have become the real Body and Blood of Christ.

How does this change take place? It happens during the eucharistic prayer of the Mass. At that time, the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, as the Church has always taught. Although they still look like bread and wine, they have — by divine power — actually changed into his Body and Blood. How can we know this?

It requires faith. It is a mystery, which, like love, we will never fully understand. The Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, his death and Resurrection are other mysteries which, along with the Eucharist, we will never fully comprehend in this life.

Catholic teaching on the Eucharist gives great inspiration and strength to believers. Jesus is really present and, under the appearance of food, nourishes us for our journey through life.

Our Protestant friends speak often (and correctly) of the need for a personal relationship with the Lord. What more personal relationship is there than to be nourished by the Body and Blood of Jesus; than receiving Him with love and devotion? And, since the Eucharist takes place in the context of a community meal, we are also united with our brothers and sisters of the faith. To make the presence of Jesus only a “symbolic” one is, therefore, to strip the eucharistic celebration of its true meaning.

Faith and reverence

A sound belief in the Eucharist moves us to some important practical conclusions. Since the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus, Catholics must have the utmost respect and reverence for these precious gifts.

We should not receive Communion if we are conscious that we are in a state of serious sin. Saint Paul makes it clear — in the text from First Corinthians quoted above — that we must not receive the Lord unworthily. Other than in crisis situations, where a perfect act of contrition can suffice, anyone who is aware of serious sin must receive the sacrament of penance before going to Communion.

Priests and catechists must not hesitate to teach this clearly to the people on a regular basis.

People who are married outside the Church are not supposed to receive Communion. They should approach the marriage tribunal to see if their marriage can be validated and, thereby, return to the sacrament. I know how difficult and painful it is for people who are not able to receive Communion; and I suffer with them. It can be of some comfort to know they may come forward at Communion time to receive blessings from a priest or other minister. (Non-Catholics and others not receiving Communion may also receive blessings.)

In a recent article, Bishop William Weigand of Salt Lake City notes a lack of respect for the Eucharist in recent years. I believe he is correct. We must not allow the simplification of the rites of the Mass — such as the reception of Holy Communion in the hand, while standing — breed an informality that erodes our belief in the real presence. We must be careful to genuflect reverently when entering the church where the Eucharist is kept; or, at least to make a deep bow of respect. We have let sloppy language lead to a disrespect for the Eucharist. I call on all Catholics in our diocese to stop referring to Holy Communion as the “bread” or the “wine” rather than as “the Body of Christ” and “the Blood of Christ.”

A matter of respect

Respect for the Eucharist also means fasting for an hour before Communion; arriving on time for Mass; and, not leaving early.

Respect for the Eucharist likewise means there should be no more than subdued conversation before and after Mass in the church. Even though many enjoy socializing, others are there to pray in the presence of the Eucharist and their rights should be respected.

Respect for the Eucharist means we will attempt to make visits to the church to pray before the Blessed Sacrament; pastors should make every effort to ensure that churches or Blessed Sacrament chapels are open for visitation. One of the most fruitful forms of prayer for a Catholic is that of praying before the Lord who is present in the tabernacle.

Respect for the Eucharist means that priests, deacons and eucharistic ministers will treat the Body and Blood of Christ with utmost respect; and purify the Communion vessels reverently.

I also encourage more frequent use of the rite of Benediction and eucharistic devotions with the exposition of the Blessed Sacrament.

Teach the truth

I call upon pastors and teachers to review basic Catholic teaching on the Eucharist with their people. I urge Catholic parents to teach the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist to their children.

We must recapture a well-deserved sense of the holy, an awareness of mystery as it relates to the Eucharist which has always been a part of our Catholic tradition.

Archbishop Michael J. Sheehan is the archbishop of the Santa Fe Archdiocese.

[Salvation]

**Jesus is really present and, under the appearance of food, nourishes us for our journey through life.**

BTTT!

[AAABEST]

The permissiveness and modernism of today's church is what produced this. The bible tells us we'll reap what we so.

[narses]

Many times modernists here pooh-pooh this survey. Here is a Bishop who worries. Good for him!

Any well-informed Catholic will recognize that only the first option, chosen by the 30 percent, is true Catholic teaching. The other options represent various forms of Protestant belief.

As a bishop, I am deeply concerned about the inaccurate and distorted views of the Eucharist apparently held by many of our people. I believe it is important to clearly understand the correct doctrine; then to live according to that doctrine.

[ultima ratio]

I notice this bishops criticizes the laity, but not the bishops themselves. What he calls "simplifications"--Communion in the hands, elimination of genuflections, not kneeling for Communion--were deliberately imposed to reduce belief in the Real Presence. The Novus Ordo Mass itself does this, designed as it was to resemble the Protestant Lord's Supper. It's a little late in the game for this bishop to try to close the barn door. The horses left long ago.

[sinkspur]

Many times modernists here pooh-pooh this survey.

Yes. The survey, taken by telephone, consisted of four questions, each very similar to the other. In addition, this "survey" was never validated by another one. IOW, Gallup's methodology was faulty.

There is no doubt that there should be more and better catechesis on the Eucharist. But one survey, taken 12 years ago, is hardly indicative that 70% of Catholics don't believe in the real presence.

Besides, this column was originally written in 1995. Source.

Here is another perspective:

Yes, Jesus is really there : Most Catholics still agree - holy communion

Commonweal, Oct 12, 2001 by James D. Davidson

At their meeting last June, the American Catholic bishops approved a document titled "The Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist: Basic Questions and Answers" (Origins, June 28). The bishops' statement provides theological responses to fifteen questions "that commonly arise with regard to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist." The document was a response to the bishops' November 1999 meeting, during which concern was expressed that "a significant number of Catholics are confused about the Real Presence."

I am interested in the role that published surveys played in the development of the bishops' document, and I would like to review and critique two surveys in particular that prompted the bishops' "The Real Presence." Then, I will summarize seven more recent studies, which confirm earlier indications that there has been some decline in Catholics' belief in the Real Presence, but also indicate that Catholics, including young adults, are more likely to believe in the Real Presence than earlier studies suggested.

The first study to catch the bishops' attention was commissioned by the Reverend Peter Stravinskas, a well-known Catholic apologist and editor of The Catholic Answer. In 1992, he obtained funds from the Saint Augustine Center Association and hired the Gallup Organization to conduct a national poll asking Catholics: "Which one of the following statements about Holy Communion do you think best reflects your belief?" Only 30 percent of the respondents chose the first option: "When receiving Holy Communion, you are really and truly receiving the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, under the appearance of bread and wine" (which Stravinskas interpreted as the "orthodox" Catholic view). Twenty-nine percent indicated "you are receiving bread and wine, which symbolize the spirit and teachings of Jesus and in so doing are expressing your attachment to His person and words." Twenty-four percent believed "you are receiving the Body and Blood of Christ, which has become that because of your personal belief." Ten percent said "you are receiving bread and wine, in which Jesus is really and truly present." Finally, 8 percent said "none of the above," "don't know," or refused to answer.

Stravinskas also found that only 44 percent of Catholics who attended Mass weekly or more often accepted the orthodox Catholic view; and that even fewer monthly churchgoers (24 percent) and Catholics who attended once a year or less (22 percent) chose that view. He also reported that only half of Catholics age fifty and over agreed with the orthodox view, compared with even fewer thirty to forty-nine year-olds (21 percent) and eighteen to twenty-nine year-olds (22 percent). Stravinskas announced these findings in the March 15, 1992 issue of the National Catholic Register, and he theorized that the confusion about the Eucharist mostly stems from changes in the way the Mass is conducted (such as standing for Communion, taking Communion in the hand, elimination of the eucharistic fast, and allowing laypeople to distribute Communion).

Two years later, the New York Times (June 1, 1994) reported the results of a New York Times/CBS News poll on Catholics and their beliefs about the Real Presence (see also Commonweal, January 27, 1995). In this poll, Catholics were asked whether the bread and wine used in the Eucharist are "changed into the body and blood of Christ," or are "symbolic reminders of Christ." The reporter, Peter Steinfels, concluded that "almost two-thirds of American Catholics believe that during Mass, the central sacred ritual of Catholicism, the bread and wine can best be understood as 'symbolic reminders of Christ' rather than as actually being changed into Christ's body and blood." He also wrote: "Even among the subgroups of Catholics who said they attended Mass every week or almost every week, 51 percent described the rites as strictly symbolic." As further evidence of a "hollowing out" of belief in this vital area, Steinfels reported that young Catholics are more likely than older ones (70 percent vs. 45 percent) to hold the symbolic view.

The results of the 1992 Gallup survey were brought to the attention of the bishops at their meeting in November 1992. While there was no immediate response from the body of bishops, individual bishops became concerned. Steinfels's conclusions, which have been widely accepted (see Charles Morris, Catholic America, 1997; Chester Gillis, Roman Catholicism in America, 1999), triggered further concern among church leaders.

Both the 1992 Gallup and 1994 Times/CBS studies, however, are problematic. In standard telephone interviews, researchers should provide succinct response categories that respondents can readily understand and easily distinguish in a brief period of time. In my view, the 1992 survey violated this norm. It offered respondents four lengthy choices which contained theological nuances that I suspect some respondents found difficult to discern over the phone. For example, I doubt that all the 10 percent of Catholics who chose the response "you are receiving bread and wine, in which Jesus is really and truly present" meant to reject the church's view of the Eucharist in favor of "the heretical teaching of Martin Luther called consubstantiation."

The 1994 New York Times/CBS News poll may also have been misleading. While it offered a choice between two views of Eucharist (one, that the bread and wine are actually changed into the body and blood of Christ; the other, that the bread and wine are symbolic reminders of Christ), the descriptions may have confused some respondents. Thus in a letter to the Times (June 18, 1994), theologian Peter Casarella expressed concerns about the survey's wording. In his view, some respondents might have shied away from the first response category, thinking it meant "the form of the material elements is transformed into the physical body of Christ" (which the church does not claim). Instead, they might have taken the second option, believing that "real symbolic presence and the memorial meal are standard features of traditional Catholic theology." In my view, the two options also might have put an undetermined number of respondents in the uncomfortable position of choosing between two categories, both of which they agreed with. They might have preferred a third option: that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ both really and symbolically (which is consistent with Catholic theology).

Thus, we need to explore other approaches before we conclude how many Catholics believe in the Real Presence. Let me suggest three possibilities. First, without denying the symbolic nature of the sacrament, researchers could ask Catholics if they believe the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ in some real way. Second, researchers could ask if Catholics believe that the consecrated bread and wine are symbols in which the body and blood of Christ are really present. In both cases, agreement would signify belief in the Real Presence. Third, researchers could ask if people believe that the bread and wine are strictly symbolic reminders of Jesus. Agreement in this latter case would not square with a Catholic understanding of the Eucharist.

Seven recent studies employ these three options. And unlike the 1992 and 1994 surveys, these studies all indicate that a majority of Catholics, including young Catholics, continue to embrace this core church teaching on the Real Presence. In 1994, colleagues and I asked Catholic parishioners in Indiana to respond to this statement: "In Mass, the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ." Eighty-seven percent agreed. In 1997, when Dean Hoge, William Dinges, Mary Johnson, and Juan Gonzales used the same item in their study of twenty-to-thirty-nine-year-old Catholic confirmands, they found that 96 percent of Latinos and 87 percent of non-Latinos agreed (see Hoge et al., Young Adult Catholics, 2001). That same year, the Roper polling company found that 82 percent of American Catholics believe that "The bread and wine used in Mass are actually transformed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ." A national poll conducted this year by CARA (Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate) concludes that 70 percent of Catholics twenty years of age and older believe that "Jesus Christ is really present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist," while 30 percent of those polled believe "The bread and wine are symbols of Jesus, but Jesus is not really present."

Source.

[FactQuest]

Paul’s statement makes sense only if the bread and wine have become the real Body and Blood of Christ.

Well, either that, or it is a metaphor. Yes, they used metaphors back then. Jesus used metaphors extensively. What is a parable, but an extended metaphor? Symbolism, representation... a remembrance of the thing, not the thing itself. To refer to the remembrance as the original is common usage now, and was then as well. This doesn't mean I think the Bible proves that it is NOT the actual blood and body, just that the Bible doesn't prove that it IS.

That said, I think many Protestants aren't reverent enough regarding this. Even if it is "just" a representation, it is a very important, deeply sacred ceremony, in which we are to treat the bread and wine with the reverence we would give to Jesus.

[conservonator]

John 6

Not a metaphor, not a symbol, not a representation, real food, real drink: necessary for life. All ancient Christian rites believe this.

[ultima ratio]

Bull. How difficult would the following question be for any real Catholic? -- "When receiving Holy Communion, you are really and truly receiving the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, under the appearance of bread and wine." There is nothing at all nuanced about this question. Any grade school child can understand it--if he had been taught the faith in the first place.

This is about as basic as you can get. The excuse that it is too nuanced is baloney dished out by liberal churchmen intent on covering their asses. A more recent Zogby poll found the same thing--that most Catholics, two-thirds, no longer believe in the Real Presence or even the Resurrection. You can thank the Novus Ordo for this--and the rotten catechesis in most dioceses.

[NYer]

The Angel's Prayer at Fatima

Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, I adore Thee profoundly. I offer Thee the Most Precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, present in all the tabernacles of the world, in reparation for the outrages, sacrileges and indifference by which He is offended. And through the infinite merits of His Most Sacred Heart, and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I beg of Thee the conversion of poor sinners.

The Real Presence

The doctrine of the Real Presence asserts that in the Holy Eucharist, Jesus is literally and wholly present—body and blood, soul and divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists frequently attack this doctrine as "unbiblical," but the Bible is forthright in declaring it (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32–71).

The early Church Fathers interpreted these passages literally. In summarizing the early Fathers’ teachings on Christ’s Real Presence, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: "Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood" (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

From the Church’s early days, the Fathers referred to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Kelly writes: "Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity" (ibid., 197–98).

"Hippolytus speaks of ‘the body and the blood’ through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as ‘the Lord’s body.’ The converted pagan, he remarks, ‘feeds on the richness of the Lord’s body, that is, on the Eucharist.’ The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist ‘the flesh feeds upon Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.’ Clearly his assumption is that the Savior’s body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian’s attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, ‘do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.’ Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally" (ibid., 211–12).

 

Ignatius of Antioch

"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

 

Justin Martyr

"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

 

Irenaeus

"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).

 

Clement of Alexandria

"’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

 

Tertullian

"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).

Catholic Answers

[sinkspur]

If Zogby's methodology was like Gallup's then it was just as faulty.

How do you explain the seven surveys which counter Gallup?

You go right ahead and hang your hat on Gallup. It is totally discredited and I'm surprised the bishops are still referencing it.

[Prolifeconservative]

DOES IT SHAKE YOUR FAITH?

These are not my words, but Jesus'... to his disciples who stumbled over this real presence teaching. Today, many are still stumbling over this teaching.

What happened to those disciples who stumbled over this teaching and could not endure Jesus' instruction....."They broke away and would not remain in His company any longer." If these disciples did not remain in Jesus' company can we then assume - in whose company did they remain?

Maybe this is the "mark" of the beast, who knows.....Read it for yourself....JOHN 6:66

[arkady_renko]

Bull. How difficult would the following question be for any real Catholic? -- "When receiving Holy Communion, you are really and truly receiving the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, under the appearance of bread and wine." There is nothing at all nuanced about this question. Any grade school child can understand it--if he had been taught the faith in the first place.

You've got that right! I think a great question to ask American Catholics is this:

"Why do you say , 'Amen!' when receiving the Eucharist?"

Go ahead, ask 10 adult Catholics this and see what they say. 6 out of 10 will have no idea what they are affirming with their "Amen!" In fact, they won't even understand it to be an affirmation of anything. It is just something that you say.

I don't know how many times I have heard the more 'solid' Catholics in our own parish ask the Priest why we don't distribute the 'wine' at Communion. There is no wine on the Altar after the consecration, is there? It is more than semantics - there is a fundamental lack of understanding Catholic truth.

I've been thinking that the Catholic pro-abortionist politicians were not hatched in a vacuum. They are products of a wasteland of Catholic teaching over the course of my own lifetime. All started around the time I sat through my first guitar Mass as a kid singing 'They Will Know We Are Christians By Our Love'.

Groovy.

A_R

[FactQuest]

John 6:51a "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever."

Does that mean that, while he walked the earth, he wasn't flesh and blood, but that he was bread? Of course not. Its a metaphor. Jesus goes on to explain this.

John 6:51b "This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

Anyway, I doubt we are going to agree on this, and this thread probably isn't the best place for me to be arguing about it, so I'll be bowing out now.

[conservonator]

John 6:51a "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever."

Does that mean that, while he walked the earth, he wasn't flesh and blood, but that he was bread? Of course not. Its a metaphor. Jesus goes on to explain this.

Did He lie? Or are you just unable to conceive of a truth beyond the rational?

John 6:51b "This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

This doesn't bolster your position.

Anyway, I doubt we are going to agree on this, and this thread probably isn't the best place for me to be arguing about it, so I'll be bowing out now.

Ok.

[tob2]

Beautiful prayer!

[ultima ratio]

"How do you explain the seven surveys which counter Gallup?"

Easy--they were designed to do just that.

[ultima ratio]

"How do you explain the seven surveys which counter Gallup?"

Easy--they were designed to do just that.

[sinkspur]

"How do you explain the seven surveys which counter Gallup?"

Easy--they were designed to do just that.

Ah, a conspiracy. I had my money on that being your answer.

[ultima ratio]

He deliberately used the word "flesh" and "eat" in a non-metaphoric, cannibalistic way. Those who heard him understood his meaning and were shocked--nor did he afterwards explain his words as metaphoric, in the way he was wont to do about other teachings. Instead he deliberately startled his listeners, intending to shock, to test their faith and to make sure they caught his actual meaning. And this realistic, non-metaphoric meaning was what the early Christians understood by His words. There is no doubt or ambiguity about this in early Church writings. There is plenty of evidence for this.

[ultima ratio]

No conspiracies. Just the usual leftwing propaganda, designed to cover asses.

[.45MAN]

Why Be A Catholic?

Because it's the Religion of the One True God. There is no other...

[ultima ratio]

Yes, if by this you mean the ancient faith, rather than the Novus Ordo.

[FactQuest]

I know I said I'd drop out, but I have to point out...

Leviticus 3:17 'It is a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings: you shall not eat any fat or any blood.'

Leviticus 7
25 'For whoever eats the fat of the animal from which an offering by fire is offered to the LORD, even the person who eats shall be cut off from his people.
26 'You are not to eat any blood, either of bird or animal, in any of your dwellings.
27 'Any person who eats any blood, even that person shall be cut off from his people.'

Leviticus 17:10 'And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people.
(and Lev 17:11-14)

Leviticus 19:26a You shall not eat anything with the blood,

Deuteronomy 12:16a Only you shall not eat the blood

Clearly, God gave commandments to not drink blood. So, yes, Jesus' teaching was shocking, in the extreme. If he meant it literally, then Jesus contradicted the Law. But Jesus also said: Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill."

How to resolve this contradiction?

Deuteronomy 12:27 And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, on the altar of the LORD your God.

As a fulfillment of the Law.

And thus, as a metaphor, it does not contradict God's word.

Jesus did not usually explain the metaphors - I find that explained parables are the exception, not the rule. Even then, they are often only explained to the 12.

Now, that the early church believed that the bread and wine became the very flesh and blood of Christ, that is interesting. Good point. Or course, the early church was also struggling with heresies, too - the Judaizers, the early pre-Gnostics, the syncretists, etc. etc.

[FactQuest]

I know I said I'd drop out, but I have to point out...

Leviticus 3:17 'It is a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings: you shall not eat any fat or any blood.'

Leviticus 7
25 'For whoever eats the fat of the animal from which an offering by fire is offered to the LORD, even the person who eats shall be cut off from his people.
26 'You are not to eat any blood, either of bird or animal, in any of your dwellings.
27 'Any person who eats any blood, even that person shall be cut off from his people.'

Leviticus 17:10 'And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people.
(and Lev 17:11-14)

Leviticus 19:26a You shall not eat anything with the blood,

Deuteronomy 12:16a Only you shall not eat the blood

Clearly, God gave commandments to not drink blood. So, yes, Jesus' teaching was shocking, in the extreme. If he meant it literally, then Jesus contradicted the Law. But Jesus also said: Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill."

How to resolve this contradiction?

Deuteronomy 12:27 And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, on the altar of the LORD your God.

As a fulfillment of the Law.

And thus, as a metaphor, it does not contradict God's word.

Jesus did not usually explain the metaphors - I find that explained parables are the exception, not the rule. Even then, they are often only explained to the 12.

Now, that the early church believed that the bread and wine became the very flesh and blood of Christ, that is interesting. Good point. Or course, the early church was also struggling with heresies, too - the Judaizers, the early pre-Gnostics, the syncretists, etc. etc.

[Campion]

Read more carefully, though. Why was it wrong to eat or drink blood?

The OT makes it clear: because the blood contained the life of the animal. That's precisely why you must eat and drink Christ's blood: to acquire his Life, divine Life.

Moreover, what was the penalty for eating blood? It was to be "cut off from his people". Exactly what we want: to be cut off from the sinful race of Adam, and joined to the new race of the "New Man," Christ.

[ultima ratio]

This has nothing to do with what Jesus taught. In fact, your thinking exactly parallels what those who walked away from Jesus thought. But the early Christians had no such qualms and understood His words exactly as Catholicism teaches. If you have a problem with this, you need to study up more.

[chatham]

I believe what has caused this Confusion is the lack of proper education in the Catholic Faith which has come about by the lack of Elementary Schools.
Most were closed down as a cost saving to the parishes.
A big mistake by clergy who lacked vision.
Children taught in sunday school type lessons, I call Public school Catholics. My two children are a result of this type of education and there is nothing better than 12 years of NUNS and Irish Christian Brothers.